Extreme Evangelical Atheism vs. Moderate Atheism and Traditional Christianity

Bingo. That's it.

I fail to see why the above would place any burden of proof on atheists.

 

I would say that both groups are significantly influenced by the glasses they wear.
Being a theist, atheist or agnostic significantly influences ones worldview. I see no reason to resist that assertion.

 

Does God exist?

 

*shrugs*

I can't answer that - no one can. But there is no credible/valid scientific evidence to suggest that a god does exist, therefore, there is no reason for me to believe so.

 

What is "God"?

 

God is that supernatural being that Christians and some other Theists worship; the creator of all that was created.

For the sake of brevity, I will make my apology to God at this point for tying to squeeze a description of His Being into such a tiny little box.

 

Sure, not sharing your beliefs can be said to be part of my worldview but ONLY because you and your beliefs are part of this world. If there were no such beliefs then it'd be nonsensical to say that they'd be part of my worldview. The funny thing is, though, that my worldview is pretty much the same with or without the existence of you and your beliefs.

It compares to your worldview being affected by the thoughts of the man that right now is driving his herd of cashmere goats on the Mongolian Plateau. Sure, those thougths are part of your worldview since that man and his thoughts are part of this world but, c'mon, let's not get carried away, shall we.

So not sharing your religious beliefs is not valid? Excuse me while I recover myself from a seizure of uncontrollable laughter.

And don't even get me started on the burden of proof nonsense. I'm terrified that my facial muscles will never recover from the laughter. Absence of a claim carries no burden of proof regarding that claim. It's as simple as that. Really, really simple.

I'm not sure what your point is, RevAnarchist. You seem to contradict yourself with this.


PS. I do not mean for the comments about laughter to be derogatory but to be a clear and honest description of my reaction to your ideas of the absence of your own faith.

 

Ahhh HA! ha ha~Good job IC ~

Rev A

 

Well, Praise the Lord... at least he was honest toward his own ability. On the other hand, IF that same knowing of a lack of ability exists among other atheists, then it would show that those others would be acting in an unconscionable manner when they make demands of Christians to provide empirical evidence of the existence of God.

 

Not if the Christian is stating that God definitively and unquestionably does exist (with a specifically defined set of characteristics at that). The statement was "Nobody can answer".

 

Two reasons you need to go back and read "The statement" again.

1: The relevant portion of the statement read: "I can't answer that - no one can." which shows that you could not even quote the relevant portion of the statement correctly, which immediately throws a big ? at the remainder of your comment...

2: There were no prerequisite factors or parameters listed in "The statement", so don't even go with that ole bait and switch routine.... it is worn to a frazzle and is no longer effective.

 

I was obviously paraphrasing. The meaning of the statement was exactly the same.

If you're talking about Christians in particular (rather than theists in general), the prerequisites are implied.

Regardless, the point remains that if the we're working on the basis that nobody can know if any god or gods exist (sorry, "I can't answer that - no one can.") and that there is no good reason to believe any do, when any theist comes along as states that they do know a god exists, it's perfectly reasonable to ask them to demonstrate how they know.

 

Paraphrasing does not use quotation marks without the implicit statement indicating that you are paraphrasing. Rationalizing to seek justification.

Implied? Since when does something that is "implied" constitute a statement of fact?

It is equally and perfectly reasonable to ask a non-theist who states that they, do know that god does not exist, to ask them to demonstrate how they know.

In either scenario, the one you presented above or the one that I presented above, both statements are declarations of alleged fact that is based on knowledge. Even when a non-theist alleges that he/she/they have examined all the data and available evidence, it is a statement that is based on insufficient evidence or insufficient data. Thus rendering the statement of the non-theist "I (we) know that God does not exist" or "God does not exist" to be a statement that is in fact executed on the basis of ignorance of the subject matter. If the non-theist has not examined ALL evidence, ????? Guess what.

 

My mantra is that nothing is 100% accurate, at least not in this universe.

Rev A

 

Yes, I made a lazy mistake. I prostate myself at your feet in abject apology. It's irrelevant to the point I'm making though.

Someone identifying themselves as a Christian implies not only that they believe in a god but that they believe in the God as depicted in the Bible with all the general characteristics that describes. If you're talking to a Christian about their statement that God exists, you're talking about that specific God.

I agree completely. I have done occasionally (without much impact).

I'm personally of the same view as Nullity. In the absence of evidence supporting the existence of any gods, I see no reason to believe any do exist.

 

Relevancy can be dictated by perspective. So are you saying that from your perspective, "It's" irrelevant?

How do you KNOW that you are talking to a Christian? Are you simply going to accept his/her word when that declaration is made? If you do accept their word on such a declaration, then you are not adhering to the scientific process. So what testing method do you use when you are confronted with such a declaration? Here is another good example. If I were to say that I am Timothy McVeigh, are you going to accept my word on that issue? How do you KNOW that I am not Timothy McVeigh? How do you KNOW that the alleged execution at Terre Haute Indiana was not a hoax?

Now what was the other side of that coin? .. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".... Yes! I do believe that was the other half of the quote that you failed to mention. Now, as for your 'reason to believe" in God or any gods..... "Reason" in the context to how you are using 'reason' would mean "purpose". So if you have no 'purpose/reason' to believe in the existence of a God or gods, then why do you spend so much time on this forum trying to convince others of this notion that you don't believe in the existence of a God or gods?

 

Problem is that some religious people make positive claims regarding their respective deities. It is at that very moment that they put a burden upon themselves.

 

Only from the perspective of the philosophy you choose and its subsequent form of logic. The Christian logic does not require nor need any empirical evidence of God. And there lies the problem. You are not going to convince any Christian to join your ranks and take upon him/her self the rigidity and confinement of your chosen form of logic. Likewise, you have made it abundantly clear that you are not going to accept the Christian form of logic...
Impasse sign is flashing.... creating the never ending battle of Theism v Atheism. Oh Well.

Then looking from the perspective of the Christian or Theist, 'the very moment that non-theists claim that God does not exist, they put a burden upon themselves.'

 

Gotta say, I didn't expect your "not according to my logic" standard reply.

 

Well, here is an old secular adage that you should keep in mind:

"Always expect the unexpected" or "When you least expect it, expect it".

 

Of course. There is only one form of logic. However, I do accept that people think differently due to different sentiments.

You know, it's at times like this that you give people reason to reconsider correlations between religiousity and certain social and educational standards.

 

We're talking about a philosophical debate, not a scientific experiment. I just a bored guy looking for something to pass the time, not a scientist.

I generally would take someone's word on that because there is little reason to lie and it doesn't really matter if they actually are or not. The only issue would be if they're lying to make Christians look stupid but I try avoid debating with idiots anyway.

I "failed to mention" it because I don't believe it's correct. Absence of evidence certainly isn't proof of absence but it can be evidence of absence in a context you'd expect to see evidence of the claim being made.

I spend little time trying to convince people not to believe in gods. I generally post about the nature of debates and philosophies regarding the existence and nature of gods (which is how this line of questioning started).

I'm more interested in how people think than the conclusions they come to, unless those conclusions (for or against gods) impact negatively on other people.

 

Debates can be taken on by anyone, regardless of their qualifications within a specified field. Of course, qualifications would play a big role in whether or not the debate was won or lost. When viewed in that perspective, it turns the entire debate process into a 'game' of competition.

Perhaps in your mind there would be 'little reason to lie'. But your mind is not the mind of the other person. . . therefore, you don't know whether or not the other guy has a 'reason to lie'. Whether it is a "little" reason or a big reason. So, taking the word of someone who makes a declaration is a risky thing to do. Just taking their word for the validity of the declaration is a showing that you are a very gullible person. Just tell you anything and you will not question the validity of that thing spoken about. So when the man campaigning for President declares that he promises a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage, doesn't matter if they are telling the truth or not. Interesting.

What criteria do you use to determine whether or not someone is an "idiot"?

Cite an example of where your rendition of the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" has been successfully applied.

What do you factually KNOW about the 'nature of God' or 'gods'?

It seems that you should be more concerned about the way that you think and the conclusions that you reach, and whether or not those conclusions you made were based on fact, hearsay, or imagination.

 

That wasn't the point. You were suggesting that I (and presumably everyone else) should apply a scientific process in casual discussions.

In the absence of any psychic ability, we can only work from what is in our own mind.

You took my word that I would really take someone's word on being a Christian though. You've taken my word on most of the statements I've made here. There has to be a basic element of trust in any conversation or we'd never achieve anything. ("Good morning", "Ah, but is it?!").

Not at all. Not only is there much more evidence and logical reason for a campaigning politician to be lying (or at least bending the truth), the election of a national leader has more potential impact on myself and other people that conversations on this website.

Doing or saying things that are idiotic. I certainly don't claim to be scientific on that though.

Criminal court. The lack of evidence against the accused isn't taken as proof they didn't commit the crime but can be taken as evidence that there is a reasonable doubt.

The same kind of things you do - different beliefs and ideas about deities that have been proposed over the years and the things all sorts of people have said and done about them.

So should we all.

 

Not sure what you are congratulating him on. This is what I and most other atheists here have been saying all along.